Re: BP 7, provide unique identifiers

To be clear, my suggestion with this one is that we should remove it rather than tweak it, unless we have something to say about the granularity level of the identifiers. "data must be associated with a unique identifier" is not an actionable best practice.
-Annette

On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:28 AM, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:

> My qualifier was “as far as these parts are likely to be interesting by themselves for direct access and re-use”. We could have examples of weather data (an identifier for the whole map versus identifiers for the data from individual sensors) or legislation (an identifier for a law versus identifiers for individual articles).
>  
> Makx.
>  
>  
>  
> From: Carlos Iglesias [mailto:carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 10:22 AM
> To: Makx Dekkers
> Cc: Annette Greiner; Public DWBP WG
> Subject: Re: BP 7, provide unique identifiers
>  
> 
> I would propose the by-line to read:
> 
> "Data MUST be associated with a unique identifier"
>  
> Great, a BP title without the word "URI" in it would be the ideal (although that's will be the only implementation option later).
>  
>  
> In the Why section there could then be a short discussion about the
> granularity of the identification, e.g. not just datasets as a whole,
> but also parts of datasets as far as these parts are likely to be
> interesting by themselves for direct access and re-use.
>  
> Agree, provided that the discourse will be in the line of "the more granularity the best", not "you must have the biggest granularity level" 
>  
>  
> There is also a bit of duplication in the text: the Why section starts
> with the same sentence as the approach section. This text should be only
> in the approach section because it is about how it's done not why.
> 
> Makx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:12 PM
> > To: Public DWBP WG
> > Subject: BP 7, provide unique identifiers
> >
> > Looking at BP 7, I don't understand the idea. I'm wondering what we
> > are defining as a "data resource". From the text, it seems we are
> > using it in the sense of whatever is linked to. That seems fair,
> > because datasets can be available as a single file or several files or
> > by separate API requests for very specific queries, etc.  So, if a
> > data resource is a data element that is linked to, then it is
> > represented by a URL. The discussion of URNs is clearly out of scope
> > for us, as they are not on the web. That leaves URLs, but then the
> > best practice comes down to ensuring a unique URL for whatever has a
> > URL. I think it would be impossible to not do that an still put
> > something on the web. In the context of data on the web, I don't think
> > much of this best practice is in scope, and the bit that is in scope
> > is tautological.
> > -Annette
> >
> > --
> > Annette Greiner
> > NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> > 510-495-2935
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> --
> ---
>  
> Carlos Iglesias. 
> Internet & Web Consultant.
> +34 687 917 759 
> contact@carlosiglesias.es 
> @carlosiglesias 
> http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en

Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 14:15:34 UTC